‘well rounded’, that is, three-dimensional (rather than a two-dimensional cartoon character), with a complex psychology.
A film must therefore give the time and space to express and develop a character’s psychology, and needs to use techniques of narration (such as restricted narration, discussed in Chapter 2) to encourage spectators to identify with characters. Complexity and inner tensions created by complex character psychology become key in holding spectators’ attentions and arousing their emotions.
However, it is equally possible to answer that a film is entertaining if it takes the audience on a roller-coaster ride, offering them an experience that amazes their senses and startles their nervous system. What is important is not the film’s ability to hold the audience’s attention and draw out their emotions, but to overwhelm them. Complex character psychology and
structures of narrative and narration are deemed unimportant, as emphasis is placed upon spectacle (extraordinary action sequences and special effects) and sound (loud explosions, stereo and surround sound, and so on).
SocIalvalue
In complete contrast to entertainment value, a film reviewer may evaluate a film positively if it depicts an important social issue. One of the all-time greats is Gillo Pontecorvo’s The Battle of Algiers (1966), a fiction film that depicts Algeria’s struggle for independence from France. Occasionally, Hollywood films depict a social issue that is not usually discussed, such as the traumas of a victim of gang rape, as in Jonathan Kaplan’s The Accused (1988). During the mid-1990s a series of films about Northern Ireland and Irish Independence were made, including The Crying Game (Neil Jordan, 1992), In the Name of the Father (Jim Sheridan, 1993), Nothing Personal (Thaddeus O’Sullivan, 1995), Michael Collins (Neil Jordan, 1996) and Some Mother’s Son (Terry George, 1996).
reDemptIon
Now that we have considered the key influences on film
evaluation, it is worth considering in passing another common practice that reviewers indulge in, namely, looking for good points in an otherwise bad film. This can be put as a question: What redeems a bad film for a reviewer?
192
It is very common for reviewers to criticize a film’s script or, more generally, the lack of coherence of a film’s narrative.
Here, reviewers are looking for compositional, realistic and/or intertextual motivation, but fail to find it. Some reviewers may even attempt to rewrite the script, making suggestions about how it could have been improved. Reviewers looking for artistic motivation may argue that the film is saved by the technical virtuosity of the camerawork, editing or set design. Auteurist critics looking only for formal similarities between a director’s work may ignore the script altogether (thus following François Truffaut’s lead in his essay ‘A Certain Tendency of the French Cinema’, discussed in Chapter 3). If the film is dealing with an important social issue, then reviewers are inclined to overlook technical mistakes, unless they are so overwhelming as to distract from the film’s themes.
In a bad film, a reviewer may single out any strong acting roles, then make the point that the talent of the particular actor is wasted in this film. Finally, the set design may be the strongest point and may even be the star of the film, that is, it may upstage the actors and the narrative, if they are not strong enough to compete with the lavish sets. This is the case with Paul Anderson’s film Event Horizon (1997), in which the techno-medieval design of the interior of the Event Horizon spaceship is far superior to the acting of the characters, who are let down by a poor script. I will illustrate many of these points in more detail in the next section, when I survey reviews of Interstellar.
Three reviews of Interstellar
One productive way to read film reviews is to read several reviews of the same film, one after another, and then examine the similarities and differences between them. From this exercise you will discover the common elements that all reviewers identify in a particular film. (You can easily find dozens of reviews of the same film on the websites listed at the end of this chapter.) In this section, I shall examine three reviews of Interstellar using the framework outlined in the first part of this chapter. Moreover, I shall refer to online versions of the reviews, so that you can gain easy access to them. (However, note that 6 The reception of film: the art and profession of film reviewing 193
some sites will archive their reviews in a different location after some time.)
Todd McCarthy, ‘Christopher Nolan Aims for the Stars in this Brainy and Gargantuan Sci-fi Epic’, The Hollywood Reporter,
27 October 2014 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie/
interstellar/review/744059
Todd McCarthy, former chief reviewer for Variety, and now reviewer for its rival, The Hollywood Reporter, seamlessly blends plot synopsis, background information, abbreviated arguments and evaluation. That is, as a skilful writer, he does not simply present a plot synopsis, for example, but also combines it with background information and evaluation.
McCarthy begins by writing that ‘ Interstellar so bulges with ideas, ambitions, theories, melodrama, technical wizardry, wondrous imagery and core emotions that it was almost inevitable that some of it would stick while other stuff would fall to the floor’.
Here he develops a set of abbreviated arguments followed by an evaluation. The review opens by arguing that the film’s content, scope and ambitions are so prolific that they cannot be contained or shaped into a coherent whole. McCarthy’s initial evaluation of Interstellar here (and in the rest of the review) is qualified: on the one hand, he praises the film for its ambitious aims and possibilities (the film tries to offer an intimate portrait of individuals in crisis, but also tries to speculate on humanity in general and its place in the cosmos), but, on the other, he does not think the film completely succeeds in meeting its own lofty aims.
The remainder of the review is mainly structured around a plot synopsis, focusing on Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), his
relationship to his ten-year-old daughter Murph (Mackenzie Foy), and the narrative’s various machinations through
space and time. However, this plot synopsis is enriched with background information: we learn that the film was written by Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan; Hans Zimmer
provided the ‘often soaring, sometimes domineering and
unconventionally orchestrated wall-of-sound score’; theoretical physicist Kip Thorne provided the technical knowledge on relativity theory and black holes; and Dylan Thomas’s poem ‘Do 194
Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night’ is quoted several times in the film. Evaluation of acting is also carefully interspersed with this plot synopsis.
The review ends on another abbreviated argument and evaluation: overall, McCarthy argues, the film provides ‘a healthy belief in mid-20th century-style Yankee gumption and a can-do attitude’, a belief he questions as an insufficient attitude for a film that (McCarthy reminds us earlier) is about the possibility of human extinction.
In terms of evaluation, McCarthy’s main concern is with
compositional motivation: as I pointed out above, the review begins by arguing that Interstellar is unable to contain and bring together all its multifarious elements. In addition (and like all other reviewers), he briefly mentions intertextual motivation –
that is, the relation between Interstellar and other films: most notably, influences such as 2001 (1969), Forbidden Planet (1956) and The Wizard of Oz (1939).
Mark Kermode, ‘Interstellar Review – If it’s Spectacle You Want, This Delivers’, The Observer, 9 November 2014 http://
www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/09/interstellar-review-
sci-fi-spectacle-delivers
Whereas Todd McCarthy looks for compositional motivation in evaluating a film, Mark Kermode seeks entertainment value, and places compositional motivation, a film’s coherence, a distant second. But, like McCarthy, Kermode’s evaluation of Interstellar is qualified: the review opens by praising the film’s scale and ambition, but a
lso acknowledges its narrative flaws.
Throughout his review, Kermode maintains this careful balance between praising the film as an awe-inspiring spectacle and acknowledging its weak points, such as occasional clunky dialogue and plot holes. The plot synopsis is fairly brief, and much of it is summarized via a convincing argument comparing Interstellar with Contact (Robert Zemeckis, 1997). Kermode notes the similarities: not only the presence of Matthew McConaughey in both, but also the dominance in these
science fiction films of the theme of love, and the importance of daughters propelling the narrative forward (Jodie Foster’s character Ellie in Contact, and Mackenzie Foy’s character 6 The reception of film: the art and profession of film reviewing 195
Murph in Interstellar both detect the presence of aliens, which kick-starts the space exploration).
As background information, Kermode informs us that Nolan worked with a new cinematographer (Hoyte van Hoytema) on Interstellar, and that his previous cinematographer, Wally Pfister, directed Transcendence (2014), which Kermode judges to be a
‘nostalgically ambitious directorial debut’, in contrast to many other reviewers who evaluated the film negatively. Hans Zimmer and Kip Thorne are mentioned in passing, as is Jonathan Nolan, who we are informed initially developed Interstellar for Spielberg.
In terms of intertextuality, Kermode devotes a lot of his review to mentioning numerous other science fiction films, all the way from Georges Méliès’s A Trip to the Moon (1902) to When Worlds Collide (1951), 2001 (1969) and Gravity (2013). He ends his review on another abbreviated argument: Nolan is a leading auteur of the blockbuster in the same class as Spielberg, Cameron and Kubrick.
Stephanie Zacharek, ‘Interstellar May Be Grand, But It Doesn’t Connect’, The Village Voice, 29 October 2014 http://www.
villagevoice.com/2014-10-29/film/the-fault-in-his-stars/
Stephanie Zacharek begins her strongly opinionated review with her key abbreviated argument, that the characters in Interstellar are dwarfed by the film’s sheer open spaces and grand themes.
This leads her to evaluate the film negatively. She develops her argument towards the end, assessing the way Nolan directs the key actors. She argues that none of them are used effectively, even Matthew McConaughey, whose acting in the film has generally received favourable comments from other reviewers. Her most direct abbreviated argument is that ‘Nolan lacks the human touch’: his films are full of ideas and special effects, but his characters lack intimacy. She directs praise only at the film’s technical dimensions: the editing, sound design and camerawork (while condemning what she calls Hans Zimmer’s ‘droney, churchy organ score’).
The central part of the review consists of a sporadic synopsis of the plot, in which she simply lists actions and events, giving the impression the film is incoherent. In addition, Zacharek supplements her plot synopsis with emphatic comments that 196
effectively back up her negative evaluation of the film. She also dwells on small details rarely mentioned by other reviewers, such as David Gyasi (who plays, in her words, the ‘token black’
astronaut) is seen wearing a plaid Redd Foxx bathrobe (a reference to the black comedian and actor Redd Foxx, aka John Elroy Sanford).
There are only a few references to other films and film-makers (Kubrick of course, and Alfonso Cuarón’s Gravity) and brief background information (Jonathan Nolan’s role as screenwriter, Kip Thorne’s consultancy role and Dylan Thomas’s poem ‘Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night’ is unnecessarily quoted three times).
Spotlight
Whereas small-scale independent films rely on film reviewers to promote them, the Hollywood blockbuster is almost review proof, since the fans of the franchise it is based upon will see the film anyway, regardless of what the reviewers say.
Digdeeper
Bordwell, david, Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema (Cambridge, mass: Harvard university Press, 1989).
An in-depth study of how films are interpreted. Bordwell spends a few pages discussing film reviewing, which i have used for this chapter.
Bordwell, david, Staiger, Janet and thompson, Kristin, The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960 (london: Routledge, 1985).
the undisputed, authoritative heavyweight study of classical Hollywood cinema, covering the history of film style, technology and mode of production.
Haberski, Raymond J, It’s Only a Movie: Films and Critics in American Culture (Kentucky: the university Press of Kentucky, 2001).
An informative and readable historical account of the rise of the
‘golden age’ of American film criticism in North America, the age 6 The reception of film: the art and profession of film reviewing 197
of Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael in the 1960s, together with their attempts to confer cultural respectability on popular movies.
the book also charts the decline of the golden age in the 1970s.
Kael, Pauline, I Lost it at the Movies: Film Writings 1954–1965
(london: marion Boyars, 1994).
Kael’s first book (originally published in 1965), containing reviews and provocative essays on film.
taylor, Greg, Artists in the Audience: Cults, Camp, and American Film Criticism (Princeton: Princeton university Press, 1999).
this book nicely complements Haberski’s book (described above).
taylor offers a selective history of a number of post-Second World War North American film critics, especially manny Farber and Parker tyler, who creatively sanctioned popular movies as a contemporary art form. in taylor’s words, ‘Beginning in the 1940s, key vanguard critics pioneered new models of film appreciation, providing a vision of critic as creative artist, as opposed to distanced judge: now even seemingly unexceptional movies could be matched to highbrow aesthetic norms’ (p. 7). these vanguard critics, taylor argues, were not interested in presenting their reviews as a consumers’ guide to the movies (reviews as advertising) but as a creative response to movies (film reviewing as writing).
metacritic.com http://www.metacritic.com
this website collects together a broad cross-section of
reviews for new film, dVd, video game and music releases.
like rottentomatoes.com, the film section at metacritic.com
summarizes the film reviews and offers hyperlinks to the full review. Furthermore, each movie is assigned a metascore, which the website describes as ‘a weighted average of each of the individual reviews for that film. this number, on a 0–100
scale, lets you know at a glance how each movie is reviewed.
Interstellar received a metascore of 74.
Rotten tomatoes http://www.rottentomatoes.com
this website is similar to metacritic.com, except many of the hyperlinks on this site link to film reviews published exclusively online, rather than to reviews also published in print media.
Interstellar received a rating of 73 per cent.
198
focuspoints
✲ There are two types of film journalism: journalism of opinion and journalism of taste.
✲ Film reviewing can function as journalism, advertising, criticism or writing.
✲ Film reviews consist of a condensed plot synopsis,
background information, a set of abbreviated arguments and an evaluation.
✲ In evaluating a film, reviewers are looking for motivation (divided into compositional, realistic, intertextual and artistic motivation), entertainment value (derived either from
narrative or from spectacle) or social value.
6 The reception of film: the art and profession of film reviewing 199
This page intentionally left blank
Taking it further
Film studies on the internet
One of the problems with the internet is that it yields too much information, much of which remains unverified. The problem is to sort the information carefully. The following list represents a good start
ing point for researching film on the internet.
thealfreDhItchcockScholarS/‘macguffIn’SIte
http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin
A specialist site for those interested in Alfred Hitchcock’s films, with an emphasis on serious scholarship. It is useful for its description of recent publications, a FAQ (frequently asked questions) page devoted to Hitchcock, and for long, scholarly articles on specialized topics about Hitchcock’s films.
BoxoffIceguru
http://www.boxofficeguru.com
This website, maintained by Gitesh Pandya, keeps you informed of what is being released every week at the North American box office. It is updated three times each week: Thursday (offering a summary of the upcoming weekend), Sunday (post-weekend analysis with estimates) and Monday night (actual box office results). What makes this site highly readable is Pandya’s informative commentaries on and predictions about the box office potential of each release. There is also a listing of the top 20 box office hits, and a large database of previous box office figures, all-time box office hits, and so on.
DaIlyvarIety
http://www.variety.com
The famous trade newspaper Daily Variety is available online.
Non-subscribers have a limited access to the newspaper’s stories, while subscribers have full access. As I am reluctant to
Taking it further 201
pay for information on the internet, I do not know what you get by subscribing. But as a non-subscriber, you receive shortened versions of news stories, reviews and the latest information on the American box office. This is definitely one site you should visit in order to gain insider information on what is happening in Hollywood on a daily basis.
Film Studies- An Introduction Page 23
